Prevention of Terrorism Bill — Derogating Control Orders — 9 Mar 2005 at 19:00
Simon Burns MP, West Chelmsford voted in the minority (No).
The issue in this division was an amendment to an amendment the House of Lords had made to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.
The effect of the amendment was to insert the italicized words into clause 1(2):
The power to make a control order against an individual shall be exercisable (a) except in the case of an order imposing obligations that are incompatible with the individual’s right to liberty under Article 5 of the Human Rights Convention, by the Secretary of State; and (b) in the case of an order imposing obligations that are or include derogating obligations, by the court on an application by the Secretary of State.
Therefore the amendment would allow control orders which did not infringe the European Convention on Human Rights to be imposed by the Home Secretary. Those voting Aye were voting to give the Home Secretary the power to impose these control orders prior to being reviewed by the court; those voting No were insisting that all control orders must be approved by the courts before coming into effect.
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (Aye)||Minority (No)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||0||147 (+1 tell)||0||91.9%|
|Lab||341 (+2 tell)||25||0||90.2%|
|LDem||0||52 (+1 tell)||0||96.4%|